Thoughts from the interface of science, religion, law and culture

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

EVENTS

Barber: Equality Criminalizes Christianity

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, who seems to specialize in making arguments that are particularly moronic even for a wingnut, told Instant Analysis, the American Family Association’s latest “news” site, that giving gay people equality will criminalize Christianity. I can’t seem to copy this, so here’s an image of it:

No Matt, you’re confusing not being allowed to impose your religious beliefs on others with not being allowed to have your religious beliefs. Those aren’t the same thing.

Well, he has a point. After Loving v Virgina, it became illegal to be against mixed race marriage. Only last year there was the case, in Kentucky I think, where a church was raided by Federal officials after they refused to perform a marriage because the participants were different races.
On the other hand, though the example about the church refusing to have the wedding is true, none of the rest of what I wrote was.

Hmmm … I had no trouble copying it. Here it is in case anyone want to cut ‘n paste it without exposing their brains directly to such massive stupidity:

Barber contends that Obama has become emboldened after being re-elected and “the mask is off.” And he predicts if DOMA is repealed, the floodgates will be opened against Christianity.

“If people are given special, suspect minority status based on aberrant sexual feelings and behaviors, then the Christian view that says homosexual behavior is both self-destructive and immoral … essentially becomes criminalized,” he warns.

That has been the experience in Canada and the United Kingdom, where people have been penalized for preaching, teaching, and speaking out that homosexuality is sin. Barber says that “essentially pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and Christian sexual morality.”

Of course, one needn’t remind such a crack[ed] legal scholar as Barber that Canada and Great Britain lack a little thing called the First Amendment.

If people are given special, suspect minority status based on aberrant sexual feelings and behaviors

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think “suspect classes” work that way. A suspect class is some axis of distinction, such as race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not some particular classification within that axis, such as black, white, male, female, straight, or gay.

Courts do not, for instance, ban discrimination against black people, they ban discrimination based on race. The only way white people can claim that amounts to special protection for blacks that white do not enjoy, is to admit that blacks are targeted for discrimination in a way that whites are not. A similar situation applies in the case of sexual orientation.

“If people are given special, suspect minority status based on aberrant sexual feelings and behaviors, then the Christian view that says homosexual behavior is both self-destructive and immoral … essentially becomes criminalized,” he warns.

Ah, but that little word “essentially” is crucial here. “Essentially criminalized” is not the same as “criminalized.” The Christian view that says homosexual behavior is sinful is in grave danger of being looked down on by the general public. Just like with bigots, boors, bullies, brutes, and blackguards, people won’t want anything to do with you. This — even though you are only expressing your deeply-held religious convictions.

No approval. No tacit approval. Not even a polite, fair-minded, tolerant “well, I don’t agree with that but I really respect your deeply-held religious convictions and fully support your right to believe whatever you want according to your conscience and your God.” No. None of that. Instead, you’ll get frowns, stares. fidgets, uncomfortable silence, looks of disapproval … maybe even an argument! With your faith!

It’ll essentially be like you’re some kind of a criminal or something.

The usual- Barber is mistaking his individual right to believe what he wants without governmental interference for an institutional privilege to impose those beliefs on others with governmental sanction.

The usual- Barber is mistaking his individual right to believe what he wants without governmental interference for an institutional privilege to impose those beliefs on others with governmental sanction lies.

One could however note that Barber’s a barefaced liar: there have been no such prosecutions in the UK, and I’d be very surprised if there have been any in Canada.

Yeah, I didn’t really think there had been. I believe there was some attempt (by private citizens) to bring hate speech charges against a Canadian preacher for railing against homosexuality but, IIRC, it was pretty quickly quashed. I was only pointing out that using non-American legal systems as a supposed precedent for what will happen here fails to take into account the differences between them.

Crip Dyke, MQ, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think “suspect classes” work that way. A suspect class is some axis of distinction, such as race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not some particular classification within that axis, such as black, white, male, female, straight, or gay.

Courts do not, for instance, ban discrimination against black people, they ban discrimination based on race. The only way white people can claim that amounts to special protection for blacks that white do not enjoy, is to admit that blacks are targeted for discrimination in a way that whites are not. A similar situation applies in the case of sexual orientation.